Veterans' suicide study, not as spun before

Veterans' suicide study yields key findings
Medical Studies/Trials
Published: Tuesday, 30-Oct-2007


The largest and most up-to-date study of suicides among depressed veterans provides important new data that may help guide screening and treatment for all veterans.

Published online (Oct. 30), the study finds that the predictors of suicide among veterans in depression treatment differ from those seen in the general American population, with younger, white, non-Hispanic men having the highest risk among the veterans.

Veterans with substance abuse issues, and those who had been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons in the year before their depression diagnosis, also had a higher suicide risk. Surprisingly, older veterans who had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in addition to depression had a lower overall rate of suicide than those without a PTSD diagnosis, perhaps because they were more likely to receive care through Veterans Affairs PTSD programs.

Though the study did not directly compare populations of veterans and non-veterans receiving treatment for depression, the study does confirm that suicide rates were very high among depressed VA patients during the study period of 1999 to 2004, reinforcing the need for the VA's recent initiatives to prevent suicide.

The study, conducted by researchers from the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the University of Michigan Health System and U-M Depression Center, will appear in the December American Journal of Public Health issue focused on veterans' issues.
go here for the rest
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=31927

When I read this, I thought I lost my mind. I went back to the earlier post to see if maybe I got the other report wrong. I have to admit here and now, as I often do, that I'm personally interested in what gets reported. For me to have taken the original out of context would be very possible. Looks like I didn't. I re-read it and then read this report. This one seems to be the way it was originally reported and not what the New York Times printed it. The question is, why would the Times reported it differently?